Objective
Fall from height (FFH) is a major public health problem that can result in severe injury, disability, and death. This study investigated how the characteristics of jumpers and fallers differ.
Methods
This was a retrospective study of FFH patients enrolled in an Emergency Department-based Injury In-depth Surveillance (EDIIS) registry between 2011 and 2018. Depending on whether the injury was intentional, FFH patients who had fallen from a height of at least 1 m were divided into two groups: jumpers and fallers. Patient characteristics, organ damage, and death were compared between the two groups, and factors that significantly affected death were identified using multivariable logistic analysis.
Results
Among 39,419 patients, 1,982 (5.0%) were jumpers. Of the jumpers, 977 (49.3%) were male, while 30,643 (81.9%) of fallers were male. The jumper group had the highest number of individuals in their 20s, with the number decreasing as age increased. In contrast, the number of individuals in the faller group rose until reaching their 50s, after which it declined. More thoracoabdominal, spinal, and brain injuries were found in jumpers. The in-hospital mortality of jumpers and fallers was 832 (42.0%) and 1,268 (3.4%), respectively. Intentionality was a predictor of in-hospital mortality, along with sex, age, and fall height, with an odds ratio of 7.895 (95% confidence interval, 6.746–9.240).
Conclusion
Jumpers and fallers have different epidemiological characteristics, and jumpers experienced a higher degree of injury and mortality than fallers. Differentiated prevention and treatment strategies are needed for jumpers and fallers to reduce mortality in FFH patients.

Objective
This study was conducted to evaluate the concordance between the underlying causes of death (UCOD) on the death certificates written by three emergency physicians (EPs). We investigated errors on the death certificates committed by each EP.
Methods
This study included 106 patients issued a death certificate in the emergency department of an academic hospital. Three EPs reviewed the medical records retrospectively and completed 106 death certificates independently. The selection of the UCOD on the death certificates by each EP (EP-UCOD) was based on the general principle or selection rules. The gold standard UCOD (GS-UCOD) was determined for each patient by unanimous consent between three EPs. We also compared between the EP-UCOD and the GS-UCOD. In addition, we compared between UCODs of three EPs. The errors on the death certificates were investigated by each EP.
Results
The rates of concordance between EP-UCOD and the GS-UCOD were 86%, 81%, and 67% for EP-A, EP-B, and EP-C, respectively. The concordance rates between EP-A and EP-B were the highest overall percent agreement (0.783), and those between EP-A and EP-C were the lowest overall percent agreement (0.651). Although each EP had differences in the errors they committed, none of them listed the mode of dying as UCOD.
Conclusion
This study confirmed that each EP wrote death certificates indicating different causes of death for the same decedents; however, the three EPs made fewer errors on the patients’ death certificates compared with those reported in previous studies.